Author: Winston’s Mom

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    Damnit Sugarfree!  You think your the only schmuck around here with no time to toss something together??

    Here’s one where Krugabe questions who is out of touch with reality.

    Will the Democratic presidential nomination go to a centrist or a progressive? Which choice would give the party the best chance in next year’s election? Honestly, I have no idea.

    This is good tack to take, given your inability to predict anything, including things you are purported to be an expert.

    One thing I can say, however, is that neither centrism nor progressivism is what it used to be.

    There was a time when arguments between centrists and progressives were framed as debates between realism and idealism. These days, however, it often seems as if the centrists, not the progressives, are out of touch with reality. Indeed, sometimes it feels as if centrists are Rip Van Winkles who spent the last 20 years in a cave and missed everything that has happened to America and the world since the 1990s.

    You can see this in politics, where Joe Biden has repeatedly declared that Republicans will have an “epiphany” once Donald Trump is gone, and once again become reasonable people Democrats can deal with. Given the GOP’s scorched-earth politics during the Obama years, that’s a bizarre claim.

    Turnabout is fair play asshole, team cuck simply decided to start playing by the same rules team cunt played by–since forever, really.  Which is par for the course for team cuck, it takes them 20 years or more to come around to anything.

    You can also see it in economics. There are many reasonable criticisms you could offer of Elizabeth Warren’s economic proposals. But the one I keep seeing is that Warren would turn America into (cue scary music) Europe, maybe even (cue even scarier music) France. And you have to wonder whether people who say such things have paid any attention to either Europe or America over the past few decades.

    We know where France is located dumbass.

    Just to be clear, Europe does have big economic problems. But they’re not the ones such people seem to imagine.

    When people say such things, they seem to have in mind a picture of the U.S.-Europe comparison that did seem to have some validity in the 1990s. In that picture, nations with large social spending and extensive government regulation of markets suffered from “Eurosclerosis,” persistent lack of jobs.

    Employers, the story went, were reluctant to expand both because of high taxes and because they feared not being able to fire workers once hired. At the same time, workers had little incentive to accept jobs because they could live off generous social programs.

    Europe also seemed to be lagging in the adoption of new technology: For a while, the U.S. surged ahead in making use of the internet and information technology in general, leading to arguments that Europe’s high taxes and regulation were discouraging innovation.

    But all of that was a long time ago. The jobs gap has largely vanished; adults in their prime working years are actually more likely to be employed in Europe, France included, than they are in America.

    Any gap in the adoption of information technology has also long since vanished; households in much of Europe are as or more likely to have broadband than their U.S. counterparts, partly because the U.S. failure to limit providers’ monopoly power has led to much higher prices for internet access.

    Unemployment for the EU this year (that is 2019, not sometime in the 1990’s) is 6.3%, with France being 8.6%.  Lets compare that to the United States at 3.6%.  While you cherry-pick the price of broadband in Europe ($90 EU vs. $200 US) these savings seem to be moot compared to the price Europeans pay to heat their homes, drive cars, or even anything else…here’s a rundown of the cost of basic things between the US and Germany, for example.

    Then again the price of anything is determined by it’s demand, and is influenced by a variety of factors.  It seems silly to pick one product and simply declare one country is doing something better than the other.  The fact of the matter it is often much more complicated than that, but since your average reader probably cunt count to 12 without the physical deformity of a sixth digit on each hand, you can get away with cherry-picking.

    It’s true that European nations have lower GDP per capita than we do, but that’s largely because, unlike most Americans, most Europeans actually have significant vacation time and hence work fewer hours per year. This sounds like a choice about work-life balance, not an economic problem.

    And on that most fundamental of indicators, life expectancy, the U.S. has fallen far behind: French residents can expect, on average, to live more than four years longer than Americans. Why? Universal health care and policies that mitigate extreme inequality are the most likely explanations.

    Now, I don’t want this to sound like praise of all things European. The nations on the euro remain terribly vulnerable to financial crises, because they’ve adopted a shared currency without a shared banking safety net; only the heroic leadership of Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, avoided a catastrophic collapse of the euro in 2012.

    Europe also suffers from persistent weakness in demand because key players, Germany in particular, have an obsessive fear of deficits, even when the European economy desperately needs stimulus.

    They’re right to fear it.  The cost of them ruling over the continent now appears to be paying for Spain and Italy to take naps in the afternoon, the Turks to commit atrocities against the Kurds, the French to go on vacation, and for the Greeks to do…whatever it is they do, rather than be productive.

    These are big problems, severe enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if Europe is the epicenter of the next global crisis. But the problem with Europe is not that its social programs are too generous and its governments too intrusive. If anything, it’s almost the opposite: Europe’s economy is vulnerable because a combination of political fragmentation and ideological rigidity has left its politicians unwilling to be Keynesian enough.

    When all else fails–PROG HARDER.

    The point is that centrists who point to Europe as an illustration of the bad things that happen when you’re too enthusiastic about pursuing social justice are stuck decades in the past. Modern European experience actually vindicates progressive claims that we can do a lot to make America fairer without destroying incentives. And even Europe’s problems make the case for more government intervention, not less.

    By all means, let’s talk about whether “Medicare for all,” wealth taxes and other progressive proposals are actually good ideas. But trying to shoot them down by going on about how terrible things are in France is a sure sign that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    That’s fair.  Medicare for all, is a fucking retarded idea that will bankrupt the country, let alone multiple hospitals and health care providers that will suddenly find their profit margins have gone to hell.  Wealth taxes will result in people fleeing the country, or holding their wealth offshore–like what happened when they tried it in France.  Except nobody is shooting is down because of how much a shithole France is, they’re shooting it down because we have practical experience from experiments with these progressive proposals  BECAUSE THEY WAS TRIED IN FRANCE YOU DUMBASS.

     

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    I’m back, you cucks!  Bigger, louder, and saltier than ever!  That could just be the cognac talking.

    Here’s something from earlier this week.

    It’s hard to believe that barely three weeks have passed since Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a mysterious subpoena to the acting director of national intelligence, demanding that he produce a whistleblower complaint filed by someone in the intelligence community.

    Since that subpoena was issued, the impeachment of Donald Trump has gone from implausibility to near certainty; I at least find it hard to see how the House can fail to impeach given what we already know about Trump’s actions. Conviction in the Senate remains a long shot, but not as long as it once seemed.

    And the whole tenor of our national conversation has changed. It looks to me as if we’re witnessing the rapid collapse of a powerful faction in U.S. public life, one whose refusal to accept facts at odds with its prejudices has long been a major source of political dysfunction.

    Wait?  Did somebody finally administer you a red pill suppository?  Did Krugnuts get whacked and his severed head mounted to one of those Boston Dynamic robots to be reanimated as a spokesman by our new AI overlords while we toil under their desks forever?

    But I’m not talking about the right-wing extremists who dominate the Republican Party. Sorry, but they’re not going anywhere. Most of Trump’s base is sticking with him, while the list of prominent Republican politicians willing to call out Trump’s malfeasance in clear language consists so far of Mitt Romney and, well, Mitt Romney.

    No, I’m talking about fanatical centrists, who aren’t a large slice of the electorate, but have played an outsize role in elite opinion and media coverage. These are people who may have been willing to concede that Trump was a bad guy, but otherwise maintained, in the teeth of the evidence, that our two major parties were basically equivalent: Each party had its extremists, but each also had its moderates, and everything would be fine if these moderates could work together.

    Wait, what?  Eat shit.  That’s damn near everybody on a comment thread in any vaguely right-wing website.  Let me spell it out for you, they hate Team Cuck every bit as they hate Team Cunt. You might know that if you ever got out of your furry pink panties, put in a decent pair on man pants and left Princeton, NJ…ever.

    Who am I talking about? Well, among other people, Joe Biden, who has repeatedly insisted that Trump is an aberration, not representative of the Republican Party as a whole. (Biden’s refusal to admit what he was facing may be one reason his response to the Ukraine smear has seemed so wobbly.)

    Some of us have been pushing back against that worldview for many years, arguing that today’s Republican Party is a radical force increasingly opposed to democracy. Way back in 2003 I wrote that modern conservatism is “a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system.” In 2012, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein declared that the central problem of U.S. politics was a GOP that was not just extreme but “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

    They are opposed to democracy, as implied in the fucking name…Republican and the fact they are relevant at all in todays politics is a result of the fact we live in a republic.  But I will pretend you know that and are playing to the retards that feel smart reading your column.

    For those retards let me spell out why democracy isn’t a good thing:  the best example of democracy in action is gang-rape.

    For a long time, however, making that case — pointing out that Republicans were sounding ever more authoritarian and violating more and more democratic norms — got you dismissed as shrill if not deranged. Even Trump’s rise, and the obvious parallels between Trumpism and the authoritarian movements that have gutted democracy in places like Hungary and Poland, barely dented centrist complacency. Remember, just a few months ago most of the news media treated Attorney General William Barr’s highly misleading summary of the Mueller report as credible.

    Hey dumbass.  Poland is a parliamentary republic, as is Hungary

    Plus nothing was misleading about the summary, as it is a well-known fact, there was nothing misleading about the summary.

    The Department says that Mueller emphasized that nothing in Barr’s summary was inaccurate or misleading, but that Mueller was frustrated about the lack of context and that the media’s coverage related to the analysis of obstruction of justice was a bit confusing.

    That is per those radical right-wing nut jobs at NPR—Barr didn’t correctly capture Muller’s fragile ego written in glittery lip gloss.

    But my sense, although it’s impossible to quantify, is that the events of the past several weeks have finally broken through the wall of centrist denial.

    At this point, things that previously were merely obvious have become undeniable. Yes, Trump has invited foreign powers to intervene in U.S. politics on his behalf; he’s even done it on camera. Yes, he has claimed that his domestic political opponents are committing treason by exercising their constitutional rights of oversight, and he is clearly itching to use the justice system to criminalize criticism.

    Politicians who believed in American values would denounce this behavior, even if it came from their own leader. Republicans have been silent at best, and many are expressing approval. So it’s now crystal clear that the GOP is not a normal political party; it is an American equivalent of Hungary’s Fidesz or Poland’s Law and Justice, an authoritarian regime in waiting.

    Yes.  Reckless authoritarians that are actively campaigning on nationalizing 1/6 of the economy in the form of Medicare for all, seizing personal wealth from billionaires (wealth is not income), and my personal favorite—sending pigs door to door to seize gunz from people that own gunz from people that own gunz.  Which is retarded given YOU KNOW THEY OWN GUNZ!

    Right, its Team Cuck that is saying that….

    And I think — I hope — that those who have spent years denying this reality are finally coming around.

    It’s important to understand that the GOP hasn’t suddenly changed, that Trump hasn’t somehow managed to corrupt a party that was basically OK until he came along. Anyone startled by Republican embrace of wild conspiracy theories about the deep state must have slept through the Clinton years, and wasn’t paying attention when most of the GOP decided that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by a vast global scientific cabal.

    Either thst or they are waiting fir jackoffs like you start acting like this is a fucking crisis.  You know, like moving inland with the ingrates that will instantly recognize you and use your soft, pink carcass as carbon-neutral fuel.

    And anyone shocked by Republican acceptance of the idea that it’s fine to seek domestic political aid from foreign regimes has forgotten (like all too many people) that the Bush administration took us to war on false pretenses — not the same sin, but an equally serious betrayal of American political norms.

    No, Trump isn’t an aberration. He’s unusually blatant and gaudily corrupt, but at a basic level he’s the culmination of where his party has been going for decades. And U.S. political life won’t begin to recover until centrists face up to that uncomfortable reality.

    Wait?  Are you supposed to be a goddamn economist?  NOTHING WRITTEN HERE IS ABOUT THE ECONOMY.  Fuck this guy.

     

  • Economic Corner featuring Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    This week Krugman declared DEMOCRACY IS DEAD!!!, which explains why it suddenly got dark out.

    Did it die in darkness?  Well, that will depend if you paid enough to keep the lights on.

    Democracies used to collapse suddenly, with tanks rolling noisily toward the presidential palace. In the 21st century, however, the process is usually subtler.

    Authoritarianism is on the march across much of the world, but its advance tends to be relatively quiet and gradual, so that it’s hard to point to a single moment and say, this is the day democracy ended. You just wake up one morning and realize that it’s gone.

     

    In their 2018 book “How Democracies Die,” political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt documented how this process has played out in many countries, from Vladimir Putin’s Russia, to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, to Viktor Orban’s Hungary. Bit by bit the guardrails of democracy were torn down, as institutions meant to serve the public became tools of the ruling party, then were weaponized to punish and intimidate that party’s opponents. On paper these countries are still democracies; in practice they have become one-party regimes.

    And the events of the past week have demonstrated how this can happen right here in America.

    Does this book by chance mention anything about the bloody English?  You know that island with terrible looking women that voted on something in the past couple years the government has gone to great lengths to ignore?  I’m going to go out on a limb before I look this up– you probably said it was going to be terrible for them to vote leave….

     

    ….I was right!

    At first Sharpiegate, Donald Trump’s inability to admit that he misstated a weather projection by claiming that Alabama was at risk from Hurricane Dorian, was kind of funny, even though it was also scary — it’s not reassuring when the president of the United States can’t face reality. But it stopped being any kind of joke on Friday, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a statement falsely backing up Trump’s claim that it had warned about an Alabama threat.

    Why is this frightening? Because it shows that even the leadership of NOAA, which should be the most technical and apolitical of agencies, is now so subservient to Trump that it’s willing not just to overrule its own experts but to lie, simply to avoid a bit of presidential embarrassment.

     

    Think about it: If even weather forecasters are expected to be apologists for Dear Leader, the corruption of our institutions is truly complete.

    Holy.  Fucking.  Shit.  Who. The. Fuck. Cares.  Have hurricanes ever hit Alabama?  Yeah.  Have hurricanes changed course with no advance warning?  Yeah.  Is Alabama located somewhere near where they were expecting the hurricane to hit?  Yeah, sure.

    None if that matters because it blasted all over the Bahamas, changed course, and will now plow through Nova Scotia.

    If it did hit Alabama, and no warning was given at all, you;re enough of a scroungy little fuck to blame the Oranje man for not seeing it coming.  It must be nice to be a dishonest asshat like Krugman that has no bearing on anything resembling reality, because he can find any way to pretend he’s smarter than everyone else.  I even picked up a Trump sharpie from his campaign website, look what I can do with it!

     

    Which brings me to a much more important case, the Justice Department’s decision to investigate automakers for the crime of trying to act responsibly.

    The story so far: As part of its jihad against environmental regulation, the Trump administration has declared its intention to roll back Obama-era rules mandating a gradual rise in fuel efficiency.

    You might think that the auto industry would welcome this invitation to keep on polluting. In fact, however, automakers have already based their business plans on the assumption that fuel efficiency standards will indeed rise.

    Well shit.  Maybe it has something to do with the increasing fuel efficiency regulations that have been in place since the 70’s?  This whole saving gas thing just popped up out of nowhere like the last time you had an akward boner while watching Bob Ross?

    They don’t like seeing their plans upended — in part, one suspects, because they understand that the reality of climate change will eventually force the reinstatement of those rules. So they have actually opposed Trump’s deregulation, which they warn would lead to “an extended period of litigation and instability.”

    And several companies have gone beyond protesting. In a remarkable rebuke to the administration, they have reached an agreement with the state of California to comply with standards nearly as restrictive as the Obama rules even if the federal government is no longer requiring them.

    Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department is considering bringing an antitrust action against those companies, as if agreeing on environmental standards were a crime comparable to, say, price-fixing.

    They are agreeing to something as an industry that affects the overall cost of ownership of a product exclusive to that industry, that sells products to literally everybody in the country.  I will wait for you to explain why this is not somehow subject to antitrust laws….

    This would be disturbing even if it came from an administration that had previously showed some interest in actual antitrust policy. Coming from people who heretofore haven’t indicated any concerns about monopoly power, it’s clearly an attempt at weaponizing antitrust actions, turning them into a tool of intimidation.

    And it’s also clear evidence that the Justice Department has been thoroughly corrupted. In less than three years it has been transformed from an agency that tries to enforce the law to an organization dedicated to punishing Trump’s opponents.

    You clearly paid no attention to that whole FISA thing in the news, because only team-red friendly outlets are reporting it.

    Who’s next? In at least two cases, Trump appears to have tried to use his power to punish Amazon, whose founder, Jeff Bezos, owns The Washington Post, which the president considers (like this newspaper) to be an enemy. First he pushed for an increase in the post office’s package shipping rates, which would hurt Amazon’s delivery costs; then the Pentagon suddenly announced that it was re-examining the process for awarding a huge cloud-computing project that Amazon was widely expected to win.

    In each case it’s hard to prove that these were efforts to weaponize government functions against domestic critics. But who are we kidding? Of course they were.

    The point is that this is how the slide to autocracy happens. Modern de facto dictatorships don’t usually murder their opponents (although Trump has been fulsome in his praise for regimes that do, in fact, rely on brute force). What they do, instead, is use their control over the machinery of government to make life difficult for anyone considered disloyal, until effective opposition withers away.

    And it’s happening here as we speak. If you aren’t worried about the future of American democracy, you aren’t paying attention.

    I am worried…I am worried Shit-weasels like you will eventually be in charge. The difference between you and me, is I don’t like the government meddl8g in the market regardless of the asshole in charge.  Tell me, did you give a flying fuck about Obama’s antitrust actions in telecom, private health insurance, oil/gas…even a merger between Staples and Office Depot. Seriously, did team Obama think thy were going to corner the printer paper market and jack up prices of reams of printer paper?  Who the fuck else will sell me pens!?!? How much of a shit-weasel do you have to be to argue against one president’s obscene meddling in the market and are perfectly okay with it when your prefered asshole wants to screw with the market?

    Don’t forget to cup the balls, schmuck.

     

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    Oh, hello darling…did you miss me?

     

    So here is Krugabe’s latest.  Now that Mugabe is dead, can we even call him that anymore?

    With each passing week it becomes ever clearer that Donald Trump’s trade war, far from being “good, and easy to win,” is damaging large parts of the U.S. economy. Farmers are facing financial disaster; manufacturing, which Trump’s policies were supposed to revive, is contracting; consumer confidence is plunging, largely because the public (rightly) fears that tariffs will raise prices.

    But Trump has an answer to his critics: It’s not me, it’s you. Last week he declared that businesses claiming to have been hurt by his tariffs should blame themselves, because they’re “badly run and weak.”

    They have been bad for business, but I am pretty sure Trump said he was going to raise tariffs on China for a long time.  He only became President in 2016, kept saying he liked the idea of tariffs, and would figure out a way to levy them on China.  Then the initial batch of tariffs went into effect in 2018…so given how much he’s run his mouth about it before doing it, he kind of has a leg to stand on.

    As with many Trump statements, one immediate thought that comes to mind is, how would Republicans have reacted if a Democratic president said something like that? In this case, however, we don’t have to speculate.

    As some readers may recall, back in 2012 Barack Obama made the obvious and true point that businesses depend on public investments in things like roads and education as well as on their own efforts. Referring to those public investments, he said, “You didn’t build that.” The usual suspects pounced, taking the line out of context and claiming that he was disrespecting entrepreneurs; Mitt Romney made this claim a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

    Attacks on Obama as being anti-business were, of course, made in bad faith. Trump, however, really is denouncing businesses and blaming them for the problems his policies have created. And tariffs aren’t the only policy area where Trump and American business are now at odds.

    No, from a business perspective, Obama was every bit the rancid piece of shit president Trump is.  Between tax hikes, regulations, and his signature legislative achievement taking an already overregulated sector of the economy, one about 20% of the then $14 Trillion US Economy–and regulate it some more.

    Seriously, the 40 work week no longer exists because of Obama.

    Some of Trump’s most consequential actions involve his frantic efforts to dismantle environmental regulation. Unlike tariffs, this may at first sound like something business would want.

    It turns out, however, that many businesses want to keep those regulations in place. Major oil and gas producers oppose Trump’s relaxation of rules on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Major auto producers have come out against Trump’s attempt to roll back fuel efficiency standards. In fact, in a move that has reportedly enraged Trump, several companies have reached an agreement with the state of California to stick with Obama-era rules despite the change in federal policy.

    Without reading any of your NY Times links to back up your claims, I am confident those businesses came out against those new regulations for one of three reasons:

    • They lobbied to put those regualtions in place, locking up their market share away from new competitors (like the ones against methane emissions, since methane is basically a fancy word for natural gas).
    • They spent a lot of money setting up their businesses to accommodate the old rules, and regulatory compliance is ALWAYS a cost center.
    • They are licking the collective asshole of the woke brigade

    When Trump won his upset victory in 2016, many investors assumed that his rule would be good for business. And he did indeed give corporations a huge tax cut — which has almost entirely been used for higher dividends and stock buybacks, with workers getting essentially nothing.

    You are a tiresome fuckwit.  OMG BUYBACKS!  Your going to give yourself twizzledick with how much you keep fucking that dead horse.

    Aside from the tax cut, however, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Trumpism is bad for business. Or more precisely, it’s bad for productive business.

    Imagine yourself as the head of a business that plans and expects to be around for a long time. Sure, you’d like to pay less in taxes and not have to comply with costly regulations. But you also want to invest in your company’s future. And to do that, you need some assurance that the rules of the game will be stable, so that whatever investments you make now aren’t suddenly made worthless by future shifts in policy.

    The big complaint business has about Trump’s trade war isn’t just that tariffs raise costs and prices, while foreign retaliation is cutting off access to important markets. It is that businesses can’t make plans when policy zigzags in response to the president’s whims. They don’t want to invest in anything that relies on a global supply chain, because that supply chain might unravel with Trump’s next tweet. But they can’t invest on the assumption that Trump’s tariffs will be permanent, either; you never know when or whether he’ll declare victory and surrender.

    Except they ARE shifting production out of China.  If you pulled your head out of your ass and paid any fucking attention you would know some of them started a year ago…They may not even raise prices all that much because many of them are keeping their supply chains out of the US.  Turns out a hedge against instability between countries might be to move your assets affected by instability out of one of those fucking countries.

    Environmental policy, it turns out, is similar. Business leaders aren’t do-gooders, but they are realists. Most of them understand that climate change is happening, that it’s dangerous, and that we’ll eventually have to transition to a low-emissions economy. They want to spend now to secure their place in that future economy; they know that investments that worsen climate change are bound to be long-run losers. But they’ll hold off on investing in our energy future as long as conspiracy theorists who consider global warming a gigantic hoax — and/or vindictive politicians determined to erase Obama’s achievements — keep rewriting the rules.

    Cigar cutting is yet another service I provide…

    To be fair, however, some kinds of business do thrive under Trumpism — namely, businesses that aren’t in it for the long run, operations whose strategy is to take the money and run. These are good times for mining companies that rush in to extract whatever they can, leaving a poisoned landscape behind; for real estate speculators sponsoring dubious ventures that take advantage of newly created tax loopholes; for for-profit colleges that leave their students with worthless degrees and crippling debt.

    In other words, under Trump it’s springtime for grifters.

    But to say the obvious, these smash-and-grab operations aren’t the kinds of business we want to thrive. Put it this way: Remaking the U.S. economy in the image of Trump University isn’t exactly making America great again.

    Yes, because you know all about running a business.  One thing you seem to miss is the next president is going to rewrite the rules, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one.  Its what the statists you keep supporting do.  The Gordon Geckos of the world are going to adapt to the new dumbass rules they come up with and find a way to continue making a profit.

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    Last week Krugman discussed billionaires that back Trump

    Whoever came up with the phrase “useful idiots” — it’s often credited to Lenin, but there’s no evidence he ever said it — was on to something. There are times when dangerous political movements derive important support from people who will, if these movements achieve and hold power, be among their biggest victims.

    I myself would have guessed it was Khrushchev but it never really mattered to me to look it up. Odd that you of all people are openly discussing the term…

    Certainly I found myself thinking of the phrase when I read about the Trump fund-raiser held at the Hamptons home of Stephen Ross, chairman of a company that holds controlling stakes in Equinox and SoulCycle.

    Most reporting on the Ross event has focused on the possible adverse effects on his business empire: The young, educated, urban fitness fanatics who go to his gyms don’t like the idea that their money is supporting Donald Trump. But the foolishness of Ross’s Trump support goes well beyond the potential damage to his bottom line.

    I mean, if you’re a billionaire who also happens to be a racist, supporting Trump makes perfect sense: You know what you’re buying. But if you’re supporting Trump not because of his racism but despite it, because you expect him to keep your taxes low, you’re being, well, an idiot.

    That assumes Trump is a racist.  The problem you aren’t seeing is it is a nearly meaningless term.  Anybody that even has a remotely tangential support of Trump, or a single policy of his is now branded a racist by the left.  Because there is absolutely no other explanation that somebody might want to see immigration law enforced, or even might play along with his shenanigans to see something resembling free trade with China.

    No other reason whatsoever…

    Never mind how unlikely it is for an open racist to become a billionaire.  If you openly disapprove of nearly any group normal people will want nothing to do with it because last I checked, pretty much nobody approves of racism.

    It’s true that Trump (breaking all his campaign promises) has indeed cut taxes on the wealthy, and will surely cut them further if re-elected. By contrast, whoever the Democrats nominate is likely to raise those taxes if she or he wins the general election, perhaps substantially.

    Depends on the promise, then again–there are so many politicians that manager to keep their campaign promises…

    But let’s get real. If you’re a billionaire, you don’t need the extra money. At that level, purchasing power has nothing to do with the quality of life; having a 45,000-square-foot house instead of just 40,000, or flying to one of your multiple other residences in a bigger private jet, won’t make you significantly happier.

    People who’ve studied the extremely rich argue that money, for them, is largely not about being able to buy things but is instead a way of keeping score; their satisfaction comes not from more consumption but from overtaking their perceived peers.

    And tax cuts don’t help on that dimension, since your peers get the same tax breaks you do.

    Hey shithead, do you really think we’re stupid enough to believe a billionaire like Tom Steyer with large investments in renewable energy projects get the exact same tax breaks as other billionaires like I dunno, the Waltons?  I would argue their businesses operate in significantly different ways and what they collect from them and the taxes they pay…or in the case of Steyer, what they don’t pay vary.

    More to the point, Trumpism is about much more than tax cuts: It’s an attempt to end the rule of law and impose an authoritarian, white nationalist regime. And even billionaires should be terrified about what their lives will be like if that attempt succeeds.

    This is especially true if you’re a member of a minority, even if your skin happens to be white. Ross is Jewish — and anyone Jewish has to be completely ignorant of history not to know that when bigotry runs free, we’re always next in line for persecution.

    Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism…that makes her Jewish…drop the orange man anti-Semite bullshit….you (((dumbfuck))).

    In fact, the ingredients for an American pogrom are already in place. The El Paso shooting suspect, like many right-wing terrorists, is a believer in “replacement theory” — the claim that immigration is part of a vast conspiracy to replace whites with people of color. And who’s behind that conspiracy? You know who: “Jews will not replace us,” declared the torch-carrying marchers in Charlottesville.

    He was also a psychopath that was afraid of robots replacing workers, engaged in eco-hysteria, and had no compunction with murdering a crowd of people, what’s your point?

    Is Trump a replacement theory guy? The replacement theorists think so.

    In any case, billionaires who imagine that their wealth will insulate them from the purges and insecurity of an authoritarian regime are deluding themselves. Look at Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a place Trump surely sees as a role model. Putin certainly coddles an inner circle of oligarchs. But he has shown no hesitation about using a politicized legal system to persecute and ruin his critics, no matter how wealthy.

    Oh, and don’t say it can’t happen here. The man who prompts chants of “lock her up,” who has declared the independent media “enemies of the people,” has made it abundantly clear that he’d love to engage in politicized prosecutions of anyone who gets in his way.

    Has he locked her up?  Has he locked YOU up? You run your mouth non-stop about the orange man, if he was half the authoritarian YOU think he is you would already be in a federal prison fellating your cellmate in exchange for protection from the Aryan Brotherhood.

    Again, there are surely some wealthy Americans who want to live in that kind of country. But most Trump-supporting billionaires would probably be horrified at the prospect. So what are they thinking raising money for a would-be authoritarian?

    The answer, of course, is that they aren’t thinking. Instead of considering what a consolidation of Trumpist power would mean, they’re reacting mindlessly out of a combination of greed and ego.

    By the way, the greed part is obvious. But it has also been clear since the Obama years that a fair number of the superrich aren’t satisfied with being immensely wealthy; they also want adulation. They expect to be praised as heroic job creators and are enraged at any suggestion that some of their number may have behaved badly, let alone that they may have benefited from a rigged system.

    There are a lot of people that work for billionaires.  I don’t recall working for a homeless guy, at least not full time.

    The fact of the matter is billionaires are probably just as diverse and opinionated as anybody else.  They probably have personal reasons for doing what they do, who they support, and where they put their money.  They are probably motivated by different things, that’s how individualism works you see…

    The problem is where people like you come in and insist that its good the little people will boycott some upscale spinning gym, if you want to call it that (see you tonight Warty).  Decisions in the market used to just be who suits your preferences best for a price you can agree on.  For people like you its good that we have products and services geared towards specific political ideologies or for specific causes a subset of activists.  You can’t buy wood from Home Depot, they support Trump. You can’t buy Nutella, it contains palm oil (fuck those orange monkeys), you can’t eat at Chick-fil-a, they don’t like gays (even when the manager is clearly a rug muncher), you can’t buy from Amazon because they treat their employee’s like shit. Suddenly I have to sit and decide between two separate products based on team politics.  Team politics sucks balls.

    Fuck you Krugman!

    Hence the hatred for even reasonable, pro-market progressives like, say, Elizabeth Warren. It’s not just that these progressives might make billionaires a bit poorer, but that they make them feel small.

    But this is no time for such pettiness. Vast wealth brings many privileges, and it will continue to do so even if progressive Democrats win big next year. What wealth doesn’t bring is the right to let self-indulgence turn you into a useful idiot, lending aid and comfort to a movement that’s trying to destroy America as we know it.

    That stupid broad again?  Now who’s the one being petty Mr. “The orange man is going to fucking destroy us all!”

  • Economics Corner Featuring Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    What?  You have a problem with me waiting for the 3 free monthly NY Times articles?

    Screw you, all of you, I’ve been busy.  Here’s Krugnuts’ article.

    I’ve seen a number of people suggest that the 2020 election will be a sort of test: Can a sufficiently terrible president lose an election despite a good economy? And that is, in fact, the test we’d be running if the election were tomorrow.

    Shockingly, he recognizes the day he wrote this, was in July of 2019.

    On one side, Donald Trump wastes no opportunity to remind us how awful he is. His latest foray into overt racism delights his base but repels everyone else. On the other side, he presides over an economy in which unemployment is very low and real G.D.P. grew 3.2 percent over the past year.

    But the election won’t be tomorrow, it will be an exhausting 15 months from now. Trump’s character won’t change, except possibly for the worse. But the economy might look significantly different.

    So let’s talk about the Trump economy.

    If you think this is going to be a bunch of hand waiving, some sleight of hand, your right.

    The first thing you need to know is that the Trump tax cut caused a huge rise in the budget deficit, which the administration expects to hit $1 trillion this year, up from less than $600 billion in 2016. This tidal wave of red ink is even more extraordinary than it looks, because it has taken place despite falling unemployment, which usually leads to a falling deficit.

    Strange to say, none of the Republicans who warned of a debt apocalypse under President Barack Obama have protested the Trump deficits. (Should we put Paul Ryan’s face on milk cartons?) For that matter, even the centrists who obsessed over federal debt during the Obama years have been pretty quiet. Clearly, deficits only matter when there’s a Democrat in the White House.

    Were you warning us about debt apocalypse while Obama was the president?  You do understand anything and everything you write and publish on the internet is as permanent as genital warts?  Tell me you aren’t nearly as stupid as you sound right now, just to entertain a bunch of partisan whores?

    Oh, and the imminent fiscal crisis people like Erskine Bowles used to warn about keeps not happening: Long-term interest rates remain very low.

    Now, the evidence on the effects of deficit spending is clear: It gives the economy a short-run boost, even when we’re already close to full employment. If anything, the growth bump under Trump has been smaller than you might have expected given the deficit surge, perhaps because the tax cut was so badly designed, perhaps because Trump’s trade wars have deterred business spending.

    For now, however, Deficit Man is beating Tariff Man. As I said, we’ve seen good growth over the past year.

    But the tax cut was supposed to be more than a short-run Keynesian stimulus. It was sold as something that would greatly improve the economy’s long-run performance; in particular, lower corporate tax rates were supposed to lead to a huge boom in business investment that would, among other things, lead to sharply higher wages. And this big rise in long-run growth would supposedly create a boom in tax revenues, offsetting the upfront cost of tax cuts.

    None of this is happening. Corporations are getting to keep a lot more of their profits, but they’ve been using the money to buy back their own stock, not raise investment. Wages are rising, but not at an extraordinary pace, and many Americans don’t feel that they’re sharing in the benefits of a growing economy.

    The buybacks…always with the butt-fucking buybacks…I don’t have time to explain this shit to you again.

    Wages are indeed rising, they always have been.  Given that 56% of the American population receives health insurance through their employer, as part of a package of compensation–that is theyre health insurance is part of how they get fucking paid, and since those costs keep going up for reasons you never seem to comprehend, we can safely say wages are going up.

    And this is probably as good as it gets.

    I’m not forecasting a recession. It could happen, and we’re very badly positioned to respond if it does, but the more likely story is just a slowdown as the effects of the deficit splurge wear off. In fact, if you believe the “nowcasters” (economists who try to get an early read on the economy from partial data), that slowdown is already happening. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York believes that the economy’s growth was down to 1.5 percent in the second quarter.

    BULLSHIT.  BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.  YOU PREDICTED A GLOBAL RECESSION LAST FEBRUARY.

    And it’s hard to see where another economic bump can come from. With Democrats controlling the House, there won’t be another big tax cut. The Fed may cut interest rates, but those cuts are already priced into long-term interest rates, which are what matter for spending, and the economy seems to be slowing anyway.

    Which brings us back to the 2020 election.

    Political scientists have carried out many studies of the electoral impact of the economy, and as far as I know they all agree that what matters is the trend, not the level. The unemployment rate was still over 7 percent when Ronald Reagan won his 1984 landslide; it was 7.7 percent when Obama won in 2012. In both cases, however, things were clearly getting better.

    That’s probably not going to be the story next year. If we don’t have a recession, unemployment will still be low. But economic growth will probably be meh at best — which means, if past experience is any guide, that the economy won’t give Trump much of a boost, that it will be more or less a neutral factor.

    And on the other hand, Trump’s awfulness will remain.

    I take it you haven’t watched the shit show that was the Dem debates?

    Republicans will, of course, portray the Democratic nominee — whoever she or he may be — as a radical socialist poised to throw the border open to hordes of brown-skinned rapists.

    Wait, which one is not effectively saying that?  Biden?  That bald guy from Montana?  Hell, half the reason I like the Yang dude is his dick isn’t big enough to fuck everybody.

    And one has to admit that this strategy might work, although it failed last year in the midterms. To be honest, I’m more worried about the effects of sexism if the nominee is a woman — not just the sexism of voters, but that of the news media, which still holds women to different standards.

    But as far as the economy goes, the odds are that Trump’s deficit-fueled bump came too soon to do him much political good.

    Good.  The more people wise up and see the political class as the retards they are, the less likely they’ll vote to let them run their lives.

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    She’ll be coming around the mounting when she comes…SHE”LL BE COMING AROUND THE MOUNTING WHEN SHE COMES….What?

     

    Here’s today’s piece where he tries to go to town all over Lizzies butthole.

    Not long ago, political pundits were writing off Elizabeth Warren’s political chances, but recent polling makes her an increasingly plausible contender, and her comeback has been getting her a sudden wave of favorable media coverage.

    Will she actually be the Democratic nominee? If so, will she win? I have absolutely no idea. Nor does anyone else.

    Oh sure. NOW you won’t make predictions professor limpdick…

    But the political strategy powering her comeback is interesting. And I think many observers are missing a key reason her strategy seems to be working — namely, that her agenda is radical in content and implications, but well grounded in evidence and serious scholarship.

    Normally, would-be presidential nominees campaign on some combination of personal narrative and soaring rhetoric promoting broad themes: “I’m a war hero/symbol of the American dream/longtime challenger of the Establishment, and as president I’ll bring us together/drain the swamp/fight the power.”

    Warren, by contrast, has been rolling out substantive, detailed policy proposals — many, many substantive, detailed policy proposals. Traditional punditry says that this should be a turnoff, that voters’ eyes will just glaze over at the proliferation of white papers.

    But Warren has managed to turn relentless wonkery into a defining aspect of her political persona. Supporters show up at her rallies wearing T-shirts that proclaim “Warren has a plan for that!” And she is, by all accounts, managing to make earnest policy discussion a way to connect with her audiences.

    In a way, the closest parallel to the Warren phenomenon — although it’s one I hate to draw — was the temporary rise of Paul Ryan, former speaker of the House (remember him?). Like Warren, Ryan built himself up by cultivating an image as a smart policy wonk.

    But even aside from the fact that Ryan’s basic agenda was to take from the poor and give to the rich, he was a phony, whose proposals didn’t add up and didn’t address real problems. Warren, by contrast, is the real deal. You don’t have to support the specifics of her plans to realize that they’re the product of hard thinking, drawing on the work of respected economic researchers.

    I do remember him.  I also recall he failed to beat Joe Biden in a debate, when Joe’s argument was mostly to laugh at him.  He’s an establishment cuck, but predictably you don’t see the irony in your analogy.  Both are “policy wonks” because both think all they have to do is argue we must put them into power, and only then will they make everything all better.

    In that case, however, why haven’t other presidential contenders been rolling out comparable plans? The answer, I’d suggest, is that Warren — herself a significant policy scholar — understood from the beginning something that other candidates are only beginning to grasp: The difference between being serious and being Serious.

    What I mean by being Serious is buying into inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom — the kind of conventional wisdom that in 2011, with unemployment still catastrophically high and interest rates at historic lows, created an elite consensus that we should stop worrying about jobs and focus on … entitlement reform. What I mean by being serious is paying attention to actual evidence on the effects of economic and social programs.

    What Warren gets is that serious analysis is a lot more favorable to a progressive agenda than Serious conventional wisdom, which is obsessed with keeping taxes low and restraining spending. Leading experts on the economics of taxation favor substantial increases in tax rates on high incomes and wealth. Top economists studying social spending argue that there are huge benefits to higher spending on early child care.

    As a result, Warren has been able to lay out plans that are very progressive but also well grounded in evidence and analysis.

    Yes, the TOPPIEST of TOP.MEN economists want to steal from other people, tie them up in needless taxes and regulations, douse them all with warming lubricants to make it easier for them to mount on TOP of the people they just stole from and go STEVE SMITH on their asses!  That’s the type of TOP.MEN economists TOP.MEN like Krugnuts think are TOP.MEN.

    Do her rivals share her understanding that progressivism and solid intellectual foundations can go hand in hand? In the past, at least, Joe Biden was worryingly Serious; he was deeply involved in the Obama administration’s fortunately unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a budget Grand Bargain that would have slashed Social Security and Medicare, reflecting the Beltway’s obsession with entitlement cuts. It’s not yet clear whether he has moved on.

    Bernie Sanders, by contrast, has never bought into the Beltway consensus, and he is clearly committed to a very ambitious agenda. But his policy specifics remain oddly vague. Most notably, we still have very little idea how he would pay for Medicare for All.

    My guess is that this is in part because Sanders sees himself as being in a war with the Establishment very broadly defined. As a result, his policy team, such as it is, consists of people who devote a lot of energy to attacking mainstream policy research, leaving them unable and/or unwilling to incorporate its findings into specific policy proposals.

    Now, none of this means that Warren will be the nominee. Many Democratic voters clearly prefer Biden’s affable conventionality, and many others share Sanders’s tear-the-whole-thing-down instincts. All we really know is that there turns out to be a significant constituency most pundits probably didn’t even realize was there: voters who want a significant policy move to the left, but also want a candidate who really seems to have thought things through.

    We don’t yet know whether this constituency is big enough to be decisive in the Democratic primaries. But if it is, Warren has a plan for that.

    The fun part about all of these plans that Lizzie is putting out for people like Krugman to beat his meat over, is that Lizzie is running for president.  The president doesn’t have the Constitutional power to implement nearly any of these plans, that power lies with Congress.  Lizzie is presently a Senator, one would think if she has all of these plans she would be better able to put these into action in the senate.  Why hasn’t she?  Here’s an Atlantic article from 2015 that questions her abilities as a Senator, and makes a case that she’s effective in her ineffectiveness.  Here’s another from Boston Globe from 2017 that describes her accomplishments as “emaciatingly thin”.  For somebody that wants to lecture us on the difference between a serious candidate and a Serious candidate, one would think you could at least find one that actually succeeded or at least appears to be successful in their present position.

    Then again, you’re an night clerk at shit-covered Motel 6 in Newark having trouble fluffing a hobo, that got a column masquerading as an economist. So how the hell would you know the difference?

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    Here it is, sorry about the paywall gents.

    I’d like to make an important announcement to New York retailers: NEW JERSEY HAS AGREED TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN BUYING LARGE QUANTITIES OF WHITEFISH SALAD FROM OUR GREAT PATRIOT GOURMET MARKETS.

    What’s that you say? There was no such agreement? New Jersey doesn’t even have any kind of centralized purchasing mechanism for food products? I say fake news! Conspiracy by the deep state!

    *Crosses legs.  Pulls skirt down slightly*

    Listen asshole!  I live in Jersey and own/operate a somewhat legitimate business there, you have any idea what I can do with such a deal?  I’d corner that (((Market))) with cheap, plentiful whitefish and bagels to sweeten the deal.  I’d make a killing!

    OK, you know that I’m not serious. But Donald Trump was serious when he tweeted this: “MEXICO HAS AGREED TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN BUYING LARGE QUANTITIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT FROM OUR GREAT PATRIOT FARMERS!”

    This tweet raises two immediate questions:

    1. Why, like so many Trump tweets, does it read like a bad translation from Russian?

    2. What the heck is he talking about?

    Listen, I only pick on you every so often.  I don’t have that kind of time to go after everything you write, and quite frankly you have a long history of saying stupid things.  Nobody goes through every damn thing you throw into the ether, every twat, every article behind a fucking paywall, and asks you to explain this shit.  Is it not possible the President ate 6 pounds of cold McNuggets at 4 am and twatted out horseshit half asleep on the shitter?

    There was, after all, no mention of agricultural products in the statement of agreement. And Mexico, while a big buyer of U.S. farm goods, is a market economy: Private businesses, not government officials, decide how much Iowa corn Mexico will buy in a given year.

    For what it’s worth, my guess is that Trump vaguely remembered the terms of an abortive trade deal with China, which he claimed included a commitment by China to buy 5 million tons of U.S. soybeans. If my guess is right, Trump is confusing Mexico with China and has forgotten that talks with China have broken down.

    Think about how much events like the Mexican standoff weaken America’s position in the world.

    That’s racist.

    To be a great power, of course you need the material basis for power — a big economy, a military big enough to make you a force to be reckoned with. But you also need to be a country others can take seriously — a nation that stands by its promises but also makes good on its threats.

    So think about what just happened.

    First, Trump recently negotiated a trade deal with Mexico — a deal barely different from the previous deal, which Trump called the “worst in history,” but put that on one side. The whole point of trade deals is that they’re supposed to provide some certainty. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, like NAFTA, amounts to a promise by all three participants that they won’t arbitrarily impose new barriers to cross-border trade.

    Then Trump went ahead and threatened major new tariffs on Mexico, not because it had violated its trade agreements but because he didn’t like something that was happening on the border, a situation that has nothing to do with trade policy. So the USMCA appears, in practice, to be a solemn promise by the U.S. government not to impose tariffs on Mexican products — unless it feels like it.

    The wisdom of such as action is debatable, and one I not about to straddle my legs across.  Playing Russian Roulade with tariffs and reneging on trade deals is not the most practical or even ethical way to go about this.  That said, it did produce a result that in some circles is desirable.  That necessity of that result of course, is also up for debate.

    If that’s what you get out of making a deal with America, why bother?

    And then, after all the dire warnings of what would happen if Mexico didn’t give Trump what he wanted, Trump appears to have backed down in return for a declaration that Mexico will do pretty much exactly what it had already promised to do before the threats.

    Like shoot Micaraguans?  You heard it from Winston’s Mom first.  Telemundo:  Mexican Army guns down migrants!

    Now, the business world is extremely pleased that the trade war appears to have been called off. But it does look as if a Trump threat is worth about as much as a Trump promise: There’s no particular reason to believe that he’ll actually go through with it.

    The only thing we can be sure of is that whatever happens, Trump will claim to have achieved a great victory.

    Yeah, that has pretty much been his MO since the 80’s.

    In the case of the Mexican standoff, this may not seem too bad. But think about what it means when foreign leaders know that the president of the United States is: (a) gullible (b) easily susceptible to flattery and (c) eager to proclaim victory and unwilling to admit that he didn’t actually get anything significant.

    That’s still racist, you cock-tease.

    Basically, this turns America into a systematic chump. Hold a summit, flatter Trump’s vanity, let him issue a communique claiming vast achievement, then go on doing whatever you wanted to do. Just ask North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, who snookered Trump into thinking he’d made major concessions, went right back to building up his nuclear attack capacity and still gets praised by Trump as our allies watch in horror.

    You mean like Iran did with Obama?

    Again, it’s a good thing that we seem to have avoided a Mexican trade war for now. But the China trade war still appears to be on. And I’m worried about confrontation with Europe, partly because European nations are democracies with free presses, which makes it harder for them to give Trump the kind of imaginary victories he craves.

    In any case, the bottom line from the Mexico fiasco is that the U.S. is now significantly less credible and less respected than it was a few weeks ago. And things will probably keep getting worse.

    I’m sure it’s not the Diet Coke that keeps Trump up at night.  Obviously, its deteriorating credibility he holds with European “Allies” and the wailing of journalists from Der Speigel think…because he doesn’t speak any German.  Now maybe he lies awake on the shitter thinking about the Guardian and how much they hate him…Now wait just a goddamn minute, that’s what journalists do here!

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    The editors tell me since this is a midday post I need to keep the fucking language to a minimum.  Sorry, my bad.

    Well…”Gentleman”. Krugnuts took a two week hiatus in May for some reason.  Now that his S&M Session is over, he put out a double dose of lunacy last week.  Sadly, I only get so many free articles to NYT.  So here it is.

    I gotta say, it was very clever of Nancy Pelosi to steal Donald Trump’s strawberries, pushing him over the edge into self-evident lunacy.

    Reference to The Caine Mutiny.  For our younger readers.

    As everyone knows, Trump stormed out of a meeting on infrastructure, apparently out of uncontrollable rage over Pelosi’s remarks pointing out that the administration’s stonewalling on all fronts, including raw defiance of the law requiring that it provide the president’s tax returns, obviously amount to a coverup of something (and maybe multiple things.) And Democrats should be grateful.

    And I don’t just mean that they should be grateful to see Trump displaying his unfitness for office, which has long been clear to close observers, in such a dramatically unhinged way that only cultists can fail to see it. He’s also helped them with a political dilemma.

    Yeah, there is no law requiring the President to release his tax returns.  Just ask this law firm, or these people here, even MSNBC says it.  Stop lying.

    You see, a major infrastructure push is a very good idea, one that Democrats would find it hard to oppose in good conscience. Yet it would also be politically good for Trump, helping the economy, giving the public a sense of progress, and also making him seem more like a normal president. And Democrats would have had a hard time avoiding making him this gift.

    True, Republicans seem able to get away with blatant economic sabotage when a Democrat is in the White House. But Democrats, in part because they don’t have Fox News to insist that black is white and up is down, are much less able to pull this off. Luckily, Trump has solved their problem.

    First things first: Why is an infrastructure push such a good idea? Partly because we have been underinvesting for years. The state of our roads, rail lines, water systems, and so on speaks for itself. Beyond that, private investment demand remains weak, leading to low government borrowing costs; investors are effectively begging the government to take some of their money and do something useful with it.

    Muh ROAAAADDDDZZZ

    On top of these considerations, infrastructure spending is especially desirable in a depressed economy, when it puts idle resources to work in a way that promotes long-run growth. But, you may argue, the U.S. economy isn’t depressed right now. Indeed it isn’t; but it’s more fragile than many realize. When the next recession comes – and there is always a next recession – the conventional response, cutting interest rates, will almost surely be inadequate. On average, when recession strikes, the Federal Reserve cuts rates by 5 percentage points. Currently, however, rates are only half that high, so the Fed doesn’t have enough room to cut.

    Yes, its much easier to prog harder while you are already progging.  Kind of the reason why they invented buttplugs.  A better question in all of this, is what if we just cut the FED out of the equation altogether?

    And when recession does strike, it will be too late to get a major infrastructure program going. Better to have it already underway.

    So a big infrastructure push makes a lot of sense; it would also be good politics for Trump. Yet 2 ½ years after Trump took office, and after a series of “infrastructure weeks” that seem to come almost as often as the president’s golfing trips, nothing has happened. Why not?

    Because the only thing the party of retards and the party of dumbfucks can agree on, is how much they hate Trump?  Oooops.  Sorry.

    One answer is that Republicans in Congress have no interest in infrastructure spending. They see any form of public expenditure, no matter how justified in terms of narrow economics, as problematic because it may seem to legitimize a larger role for government in general.

    Another answer is that until now Trump officials have been completely unwilling to consider a traditional, clean infrastructure program – you know, just build stuff. Instead, they have proposed complex public-private partnerships that would in effect subsidize the privatization of public assets. It has been easy for Democrats to reject such ideas, as not really being about infrastructure at all.

    Right.  Not enough room for unionized graft or enough time for construction companies to grease their palms if the whole thing is privatized.  Its easy to just kick the can down the road.

    After the 2018 midterms, however, it began to look as if Trump, wanting a policy win, might finally be willing to talk about a genuine infrastructure plan. And this had the potential of becoming a trap for Democrats, who would have trouble denying him that policy win.

    But it was not to be. Let’s not try to pretend that there was any clever political strategy in Trump’s walkout; it was just his immaturity and insecurity, but even more obvious than usual. And the attempt to portray Pelosi as out of control is so ludicrous that only totally deluded people – i.e., around a third of the country – could possibly believe it.

    So if I were Pelosi and Schumer, I would be quietly expressing thanks to Trump for throwing a tantrum, and extricating them from a potential political trap.

     

    TL/DR Version:  ORANGE MAN IS STILL BAD.  TRUST ME I HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE HIDDEN IN MY ASS.

  • Economics Corner with Paul Krugman and Winston’s Mom

    Sometimes I consider what would happen if I took that flight attendant job, but then I wouldn’t be here, reading this asshole.

    I made a bad economic call on election night 2016, predicting a Trump recession. But I quickly realized that political dismay had clouded my judgment, and retracted the call three days later. “It’s at least possible,” I wrote on Nov. 11, 2016, “that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly.”

    What I didn’t realize at the time was just how much bigger the deficits would get. Since 2016, the Trump administration has, in practice, implemented the kind of huge fiscal stimulus followers of John Maynard Keynes pleaded for when unemployment was high — but Republicans blocked.

    NO.SHIT.

    Contrary to what Donald Trump and his supporters claim, we are not seeing an unprecedented boom. The U.S. economy grew 3.2 percent over the past year, a growth rate we haven’t seen since … 2015. Employment has been growing steadily since 2010, with no break in the trend after 2016. Still, the long stretch of growth has pushed the unemployment rate down to levels not seen in decades. How did that happen, and what does it tell us?

    The strength of the economy doesn’t reflect a turnaround of the U.S. trade deficit, which remains high. Nor does it reflect a giant boom in business investment, which proponents of the 2017 tax cut promised, but didn’t happen. What’s driving the economy now is, instead, deficit spending.

    Nice deflection on the unemployment rate, which is indeed at near unprecedented levels.  At 3.8%, it is the lowest since 1969.  I should also point out you are citing the GDP growth rate.  What Trump and his supporters are pointing out, is the GDP itself is at levels we have not seen, as this graph suggests.  The truth is, citing either of these statistics without any further context is disingenuous.

    Economists often use the cyclically adjusted budget deficit — an estimate of what the deficit would be at full employment — as a rough measure of how much fiscal stimulus the government is providing. By that measure, the federal government is now pumping as much money into the economy as it was seven years ago, when the unemployment rate was more than 8 percent.

    The explosion of the budget deficit isn’t just a result of that tax cut. After Republicans took control of the House in 2010, they forced the federal government into austerity, squeezing spending despite high unemployment and low borrowing costs. But once Trump was in the White House, spending was suddenly O.K. again (as long as it didn’t help poor people). In particular, real discretionary spending — expenditures other than those on Social Security, Medicare and other safety net programs — has surged after years of decline.

    So there’s really no mystery about the economy’s continuing strength: It’s a Keynesian thing. But what do we learn from the experience?

    Politically, we’ve learned that the G.O.P. is deeply hypocritical. After all that Obama-era shrieking about the dangers of debt and the looming threat of inflation, the party cheerfully opened the spigots as soon as it had its own man in the White House. You still see news reports that describe prominent Republicans as “deficit hawks,” and puzzle over their relaxed attitude toward the current flood of red ink. Come on, everyone knows what that was all about.

    *Yawns*

    We already knew that. Try to keep up, cunt.

    This has been said for years by people you have publicly decried as fanatics.  Glad to seen you took time away from massaging your prostate with your Nobel Prize to notice.  Once team icky is out of power, I suppose you will just shove the prize back up your ass.

    Beyond that, we now know that the long period of high unemployment that followed the 2008 financial crisis could easily have been avoided. Those of us who warned from the beginning that the Obama stimulus was too small and short-lived, and that austerity was hobbling the recovery, were right. If we had been willing to provide the same kind of fiscal support in 2013 that we’re providing now, unemployment that year would probably have been under 6 percent, not 7.4 percent.

    But at the time, what I used to call the Very Serious People offered many reasons we couldn’t do what textbook economics said we should be doing. The V.S.P. said there was a debt crisis, even though the U.S. government was able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. They said high unemployment was “structural,” and couldn’t be solved by increasing demand. In particular, workers didn’t have the skills needed for a modern economy.

    None of these claims were true. But together with Republican obstructionism, they helped postpone a return to full employment for many years.

    If only we tried to prog harder…you sound like that old joke about a medical intern that was visiting a psych ward.  He came across a patient that was furiously masturbating and asked the doctor what his problem was.  “Oh, he has a condition where he needs to constantly ejaculate, it keeps him busy at least.”  Then they came across another patient getting fellated by a nurse, and the intern again asked what his problem was: “Same condition, he just has commercial insurance.”

    You’re the first patient.

    So are the Trump deficits a good thing? It turns out that two years ago the U.S. was further from full employment than most people thought, so there is a case for fiscal stimulus even now. And the risks of debt are far lower than the Very Serious People claimed.

    PROG HARDER!

    If we’re going to run up debt, however, it should be for a good purpose. We could be using deficits to rebuild our creaking infrastructure. We could be investing in children, making sure they have adequate health care and nutrition, and lifting them out of poverty.

    But Republicans are still blocking any kind of useful spending. Not only are Senate Republicans opposed to infrastructure investment, the Trump administration is proposing big cuts in aid to children, especially health care and education. Deficits are apparently good only if they’re incurred giving huge tax breaks to corporations, which use the money to buy back their stock.

    So that’s the story of the economy in 2019. Employment is high and unemployment low, because Republicans have embraced the kind of deficit spending they claimed would destroy America when Democrats held power. But none of that spending is being used to help those in need, or make us stronger in the long run.

    Wait…Team Red is opposed to funding infrastructure?  And again with the goddamn stock buybacks.  Does the Times give you a 401k?  If the Times (FINRA Symbol NYT) buys back some of their own shares on the open market, that creates scarcity for their stock, which in turn raises the price of their stock…assuming anybody wants to buy shares in the New York Times.  This in turn adds value to any firm or individual that invests in NYT.  Given that such investment vehicles, like a 401K, are provided as a source of compensation by many companies, it stands to reason this benefits an awful lot of working-class schlubs.

    To continue to promote the fallacy that stock buybacks only benefit the wealthy suggests you are either you are a shitty economist, or a disingenuous cunt.  I’ll let you decide which.